字神帝國英語天地

今日主題：The living wage-- Wage flaws / 最低生活工資--工資缺陷

康康精選GRE&GMAT會考的主題，堅持每天精讀一定會進步的哦!!
MP3音檔 (按右鍵可下載聽)：喜歡的同學，幫忙推或按讚哦~~
http://xia2.kekenet.com/Sou…/2016/…/eco160819_2459781t8K.mp3

只有音檔怎夠，聽不懂地方，不用怕，康康幫你準備好中英文稿了：

中英文稿：
The living wage-- Wage flaws
最低生活工資--工資缺陷

Sense and nonsense about minimum wages
最低工資的意義何在

What unites Ed Miliband, the Labour leader; Boris Johnson, London’s Tory mayor; and Barclays Bank? All are keen on the “living wage”, the hourly rate needed to pay for the items people reckon they need for an acceptable standard of living. On November 5th researchers paid by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation uprated it to 7.45 pounds ($11.90). A separate calculation by GLA Economics, a research unit that advises Mr Johnson’s government, put the living wage in London at ￡8.55. Mr Miliband suggests naming and shaming those who pay less. Business folk warn darkly about the cost in lost jobs. Who is right?
是什麼將工黨領袖埃德•米利班德，紐約的保守市長伯里斯•詹森以及巴克萊銀行聯繫在一起呢？他們都對“最低工資”極感興趣，每小時的工資應該足以支付人們認為的在一個合適的生活水準下應該擁有的東西。在11月5日，Joseph Rowntree基金會的調查者發現每小時工資提高到7.45英鎊（約為11.90美元）。詹森政府的諮詢機構——GLA經濟研究協會做了一項獨立的計算，得出倫敦的最低工資是7.45英鎊。米利班德對那些小氣的雇主冷嘲熱諷，而商界人士則嚴肅警告說，員工失業對公司也會造成損失。孰對孰錯？

A mandatory national minimum adult hourly wage of 3.60 pounds was introduced in April 1999, and has been regularly uprated since. In October it rose to 6.19 pounds. The wage floor seems not to have cost jobs. A 2010 paper by researchers at the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics found the long-run effect was either negligible or positive (ie, jobs increased). That finding is echoed in studies of minimum wages in America.
在1999年4月，強制實行成年人小時工資不低於3.6英鎊的標準，到目前為止此項標準不斷提高。到了10月就增加到每小時6.19英鎊。薪資水準似乎還沒導致失業。2010年，倫敦經濟學院中心的一篇論文研究經濟發現（最低工資）這一研究與美國的最低工資研究遙相呼應（即就業增加）。而這項研究在美國最低工資水準的研究中一直持續著。

Such results might seem puzzling. If the price of something is forced upwards, demand for it should fall. Why might this not be the case for low-paid workers? The answer is that firms find other ways to absorb higher wage costs. The simplest is to raise prices. Fast-food restaurants in New Jersey did so when the state’s minimum wage was raised in 1992, according to a landmark study by David Card and Alan Krueger of Princeton University. Firms may also skimp on non-wage benefits, trim the number of hours worked by low-paid staff, or cut other costs. Even the best-run firms can find savings when pushed.
這樣的結果可能會令人費解。如果東西的價格被迫上升，那麼他的需求將會下降。這樣的情況難道不會出現在那些低工資者的身上麼？答案是,公司將會尋找其他方式來減少高額的工資成本。最簡單的就是提高價格。根據David Card和普林斯頓大學的Alan Krueger的一項里程碑式的研究顯示，新澤西的速食店在1992年國家的提出最低工資標準的時候就是這樣做的。公司也可以克扣非工資福利，削減低薪工作人員工作時數以及其他的減少成本方式。運行得最好的公司甚至可以在強制的情況下找到解決的方式。

They may even find benefits. Turnover of low-paid staff often falls in places where minimum wages go up, reducing hiring costs. Higher wages might also make workers more productive. The theory of “efficiency wages” says that well-paying firms can induce staff to work harder by improving morale or by making it costlier for them to risk being sacked. The well-heeled firms that have signed up to the living wage report a better standard of work. Bosses in less cosy workplaces know this, too. A study of prostitution in Chicago found that pimps paid above-market wages to retain the best street workers.
他們甚至在其中有利可圖。當最低工資上調時，低薪員工流通率也會同時上漲，這樣將可以降低雇傭成本。而高工資也可能使得工人更有效率。“績效工資”理論認為：高薪公司或可以激發員工士氣，或使員工冒解雇之風險而投機犧牲代價變的更高，從而促使員工更努力工作。據報告顯示，收入不錯的企業都規規矩矩地執行最低工資標準，其工作品質都處於較高水準。而工作環境不怎麼舒適的公司的老闆都知道這一點。芝加哥的一項研究發現，老鴇們支付高於市場的薪水來留住最好的街頭工作者。

These are comforting arguments for those who think firms should be cajoled into paying the living wage. They apply only up to a point. Efficiency-wage theory was devised to explain high unemployment. Wage floors in America are low by European standards. Britain’s minimum wage is carefully set to avoid demolishing jobs. When it was introduced it affected fewer than 2 million workers. But the national living wage is 20% higher, the London rate almost 40% higher. If applied to all those currently in work, they would raise the pay of around 5m employees. It is hard to believe that would have no effect on jobs.
對那些認為公司應該被連哄帶騙地支付最低生活工資來說，這些都是令人欣慰的參數。但是他們只用到了一個方面。效率工資理論被用來解釋高失業率。美國的最低工資標準低於歐洲水準。英國的最低工資的設置是十分謹慎的，以防帶來失業，受影響的人數應控制在200萬之內。但是全國最低生活工資高出（實際水準的）20%,倫敦率更是高出近40%。如果推廣到所有的行業，約有500萬人將會提高最低工資。那麼，很難相信這對就業沒有任何影響。

Indeed, large cuts in real wages help explain why the jobs market has hummed along in an otherwise sluggish economy. Employment growth has been stronger in low-paid industries—in shops, hotels, bars, office services and so on—than in higher-paid work. The law firms, banks and accountants who have embraced the living wage can afford it, as they employ few low-paid workers.
事實上,實際工資大削減有助於解釋為什麼就業市場在蕭條的經濟中仍高歌猛進。例如像商店、酒店、酒吧、辦公服務，如此等等低收入行業往往比報酬更高的的工作的就業率要高。律師事務所、銀行和會計等行業可以承受起最低工資標準，因此他們很少雇傭那些低薪勞動者。

A living wage implies a wage level that keeps up with prices, at least in part. But British workers have had to settle for a lower standard of living in recent years, because of a weaker pound, the rising cost of oil across the world and higher taxes. As a result, surprisingly few have lost their jobs. Brits, it seems, much prefer the hardship of low wages to the misery of no wages.
一個最低生活工資至少要與部分物價水準保持一致。然而，由於英鎊疲軟，世界範圍內石油價格上升以及稅收提高，英國工人最近幾年不得不過著水準相對較低的生活。但是，令人驚訝的是，很少有人失去了工作。與沒有工資相對比，收入低一點對英國人來說沒什麼關係。